OXYLANE VILLAGE, DECATHLON UK NOTTINGHAM …planning.broxtowe.gov.uk/(S(ei2fb23p0p34hb2yikr5dmel))/Published/... · OXYLANE VILLAGE, DECATHLON UK NOTTINGHAM ARBORICULTURAL IMPLICATIONS

OXYLANE VILLAGE, DECATHLON UK

NOTTINGHAM

ARBORICULTURAL IMPLICATIONS ASSESSMENT

(Report Ref: TEP.2953.001)

September 2013

Version 3.0

for

Decathlon UK

Canada Water Retail

Surrey Quays Road

London

SE16 2XU

Written: Checked: Approved:

TP RO JS

OXYLANE VILLAGE, DECATHLON - NOTTINGHAM

ARBORICULTURAL IMPLICATIONS ASSESSMENT

CONTENTS PAGE

1.0 INTRODUCTION ....................................................................................... 1

2.0 THE SITE AND SURROUNDINGS ................................................................. 2

3.0 TREE PRESERVATION ORDERS AND OTHER STATUTORY PROTECTION .......... 3

4.0 TREE POPULATION & DEVELOPMENT IMPLICATIONS ................................... 5

5.0 TREE PROTECTION REQUIREMENTS ......................................................... 10

6.0 ARBORICULTURAL RECOMMENDATIONS .................................................. 11

7.0 SUMMARY ............................................................................................ 15

APPENDICES

Appendix 1: Arboricultural Data Sheets

Appendix 2: Survey Method

DRAWINGS

Drawing 1: Tree Constraints Plan: D2953.001

Drawing 2: Arboricultural Implications and Tree Protection Plan: D2953.003B

Drawing 3: Tree Protection Fencing: D.TREE_FENCING.001

Oxylane Village, Decathlon - Nottingham – Arboricultural Implications Assessment

TEP Report Ref: 2953.001

Version 3.0

1 September 2013

1.0 INTRODUCTION

1.1 TEP has been commissioned by Decathlon UK to conduct an arboricultural

survey of land adjacent to M1 Junction 26. This report details the arboricultural

implications of developing the site, subsequent mitigation recommendations and

protective measures.

1.2 The survey was carried out in June 2011 by means of inspection from ground

level by a qualified arboriculturist. Weather conditions during the survey were

fine.

1.3 Under BS 5837:2005 Trees in Relation to Construction - Recommendations the

assessment of trees is made objectively. The categorisation method identifies

the quality and value of the existing tree stock.

1.4 A topographical survey drawing detailing tree stem/canopy outline locations

(Ref: 110614-M1_J26_A610) was used to record the position of existing trees

and vegetation. For the purposes of this report we have assumed that detail on

the drawing is accurate. A number of trees were not shown on the

topographical survey drawing, particularly those within the peripheral woodland

compartments and on the site boundary. The location of all such trees on

Drawing 1 is approximate.

1.5 A total of 33 individual trees (T1 – T33); 12 groups of trees (G1 – G12) and 6

woodland groups (W1 – W6) were surveyed and mapped (refer to Drawing 1).

All arboricultural information recorded during the survey is presented at

Appendix 1.

1.6 The nature of the soils on site was not assessed during the survey. The

possibility of minor soil movement due to tree root activity cannot be discounted.

The advice of a structural engineer should be sought in regard to appropriate

foundation depths.

1.7 This report provides the results of the survey and includes the following:

A schedule of all trees located within, or in close proximity to the

proposed development site (Appendix 1);

An assessment based on BS 5837:2005, of trees in terms of their

potential value within any future development. On the basis of this

assessment trees have been categorised into one of four categories: A, B,

C or R (Appendices 1 & 2);

An assessment, based on BS 5837:2005, of the requirement for

protection of trees during the construction phase (Section 5);

Advice on removal, retention and management of trees (Sections 4 & 6);

A Tree Constraints Plan detailing tree quality categories, canopy spreads

and Root Protection Areas (RPA) for all trees surveyed (Drawing 1);



Version 3.0

2 September 2013

A Tree Implications and Protection Plan detailing the development

proposals, trees to be retained and removed, tree protection fencing and

special mitigation construction (Drawing 2).

2.0 THE SITE AND SURROUNDINGS

2.1 The site is located to the west of Nottingham, adjacent to the M1 motorway

and the A610 and close to Nuthall. The survey area itself is a large field to the

west of the motorway and south of the A610 and is accessed from the north.

2.2 The land topography is gently sloping from south west to north east with

steeper localised level changes at the northern boundary and around the existing

agricultural access point. It comprises grazed agricultural land with woodland

belts and hedgerow around most of the boundary.

2.3 The site lies within the Green Belt and within the Greenwood Community

Forest.

2.4 It is presumed for the purposes of this report that the ownership boundary is

defined by the fence and associated trees that surround much of the site. It

may be that the boundary lies further out in some areas and that the

requirements of the agricultural usage of the site have dictated the fence

location. In such cases, trees that have been noted as ‘third-party’ may in fact

fall under the ownership and responsibility of the site owners and managers. All

trees directly on the boundary may be presumed to be jointly owned by both

landowners.

Development Proposals

2.5 The proposed development is a retail and leisure facility. The scheme comprises

shops, sports pitches, cycle tracks and amenity landscaping as well as car

parking and supporting infrastructure.

2.6 A key element of the project will be the augmentation and enhancement of the

existing green infrastructure and the creation of new habitats and access to

amenity landscapes. In particular, a new track for cycling/recreation will be

created around the perimeter of the site, which will abut the existing woodland

to the north and provide opportunities for additional planting.

2.7 The detail of the proposals is shown on Drawing 2 and is based on the Site Plan

(Ref: Broxtowe SitePlan updated aug13v04) supplied by the client.



Version 3.0

3 September 2013

3.0 STATUTORY DESIGNATIONS AND PLANNING FRAMEWORK

Tree Preservation Orders

3.1 Consultation with Broxtowe Borough Council confirmed that at the time of the

survey a number of trees were subject to Tree Preservation Order status. The

woodland belt to the north-west of the site (including G4, T1, T2 and northern

part of W1) is protected. This area is called Verge Wood.

3.2 No works to these trees may be undertaken without written permission from the

local authority.

Conservation Area

3.3 The site is not within a Conservation Area. Nuthall Conservation Area lies to the

north of the A610 and any intention to undertake tree works within this area

(particularly around the access road construction) must be notified to the local

authority six weeks in advance of the commencement of works. The local

authority may make a Tree Preservation Order during this time if they consider it

expedient to do so. 3.4 (Policy E3) - Planning permission will only be granted for development within a

conservation area which preserves or enhances the character and appearance of

the area having regard to its location, scale, design and materials.

Green Belt

3.5 The site is within the Green Belt. As such, a number of local planning policies

may be considered pertinent to the management of trees within the development.

There is therein a clear planning requirement to preserve and enhance visual

amenity and conservation value, both of which may be delivered substantially

through new tree planting.

3.6 (Policy E8) - Planning permission will not be granted for development in the Green

Belt except where it constitutes appropriate development. Appropriate

development includes: essential facilities for outdoor sport and outdoor

recreation; essential facilities for other uses of land which preserve the openness

of the Green Belt and which do not conflict with the purposes of including land

within it.

3.7 (Policy E9) - Development in the Green Belt will not be permitted if the

development, by reason of its siting, design or materials, harms the open

character or visual amenities of the Green Belt.



Version 3.0

4 September 2013

3.8 (Policy E10) - Within the context set by policies E8 and E9, planning permission

will be granted for uses of land in the Green Belt which provide opportunities for

access to the open countryside, or for outdoor sport and recreation, and retain or

enhance the attractiveness of landscapes and secure nature conservation

interests. Felling Licences

3.9 If over 5m3 of timber is to be removed within a calendar quarter from any

woodland there is a requirement, under Forestry Acts 1967 and 1979, to obtain

a Felling Licence from the Forestry Commission. An assessment of the quantity

of timber to be felled at any one time should be made on determining the final

details of the works to be carried out. 3.10 A felling licence is not required for felling to immediately facilitate a development

authorised by a planning permission.

3.11 Other general exemptions that remove the need for a felling licence include:

Where the trees to be felled are less than 80mm dbh (diameter at breast

height) or 150mm dbh for coppice or under-wood, or 100mm dbh for

thinnings;

Where the felling of a tree is required to abate a foreseeable hazard or

danger;

Where trees are to be felled as part of a Woodland Grant Scheme (WGS)

contract entered into between the landowner and The Forestry

Commission.

3.12 A felling licence may be required as part of any subsequent woodland

management works that may be enforced as a condition of planning or as part

of ongoing improvements.

Protected Species

3.13 Mature trees often contain cavities, crevices and hollows that offer potential

habitat for species such as bats and birds. Both are afforded protection under

the Schedule 1 and 5 of the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 (as amended),

as well as under Schedule 2 of the Conservation (Natural Habitats) Regulations

1994 (as amended).

3.14 A preliminary ground level appraisal of the wildlife habitat value of each feature

was undertaken as part of the arboricultural survey. Due to their age and

condition 10 features were found to have features of a size and condition

desirable to bats and/or owls. Table 1 provides details of trees with these

features.



Version 3.0

5 September 2013

Table 1: Trees on site with bat potential

Feature number Feature of bat potential

T1 Cracks

T8 Stem failure

T11 Cavities

T16 Previous branch failures

G4 Dense group

W1 Woodland

W2 Woodland

W3 Woodland

W4 Woodland

W5 Woodland

3.15 If the presence of a bat roost is suspected whilst undertaking any works on trees

and groups on site, operations must be halted until a licensed bat handler or

ecologist can provide advice.

3.16 Nesting birds, their nests and eggs are protected under the Wildlife and

Countryside Act 1981 (as amended). It is an offence to intentionally or

recklessly, damage or destroy nests and all tree work should ideally be

undertaken outside the bird nesting season (March to August inclusive).

3.17 If this is not possible then a detailed inspection of each tree should be undertaken

by a qualified ecologist immediately prior to the arboricultural works. Should an

active nest be found (being built, containing eggs or chicks) then any work likely

to affect the nest must be halted until the nest becomes inactive.

4.0 TREE POPULATION & DEVELOPMENT IMPLICATIONS

Population

4.1 33 trees, 12 groups and 6 woodland compartments were surveyed. A schedule

of their species, condition, age, BS 5837:2005 quality value and management

recommendations is provided at Appendix 1.

4.2 Surveyed trees are mainly confined to the perimeter of the survey area and are on

the site boundary or on adjacent third-party land. A line of trees runs down the

centre of the site and is presumed to indicate a previous boundary.

4.3 The woodland area to the north-west of the site is called Verge Wood.



Version 3.0

6 September 2013

4.4 The survey includes a high proportion of high value (A Category) features. This is

largely due to the landscape and habitat significance of the woodland belts

flanking the site. These are prominent within the landscape and form part of a

larger wood that previously connected with woodland to the north before it was

bisected by the A610.

4.5 The perimeter woodlands and groups are in good condition but would benefit

from some thinning to improve age structure and species mix. The dominant

species in all woodland groups are sycamore, ash, beech and hawthorn.

4.6 The woodland compartments contain a number of dead elm trees that could fall

into the site.

4.7 Most woodland compartments are delineated at the boundary by ‘boundary

trees’. These tend to be different to the surrounding woodland by virtue of form,

species and uniformity. In many places, these trees comprise lapsed mature

hawthorn hedgerow.

4.8 Group G1 is an old boundary feature that combines with group G2 to form a

short section of ‘Green Lane’. The topography and form of the trees in G1

suggest that the orientation of the feature predates the surrounding plantation,

giving it additional historic interest.

4.9 Trees T13 to T31 and groups G11 and G12 are evidence of a previous boundary

between the two halves of the site. They roughly bisect the site from north to

south. Most trees in this area are suffering from soil compaction caused by cattle

grazing and some associated stem wounding. Accordingly, five trees in this

grouping have been given an R Category denoting unsuitability for retention due

to poor condition. As a grouping, these trees are significant within the landscape

because they are visible from the motorway and provide evidence of previous site

usage. Many of the trees in the area would benefit from soil decompaction or

mulching to improve the rooting environment.

4.10 Tree and group locations, their quality categories and canopy spreads are shown

on Drawing 1.

Tree Quality Categorisation

4.11 Under BS 5837:2005 Trees in Relation to Construction – Recommendations trees

and groups are objectively assigned a quality category designed to quantify their

value within any future development. Table 2 presents a summary of the

categorisation criteria presented in ‘Table 1 – Cascade chart for tree quality

assessment’ of the British Standard. The full table has been reproduced at

Appendix 2.



Version 3.0

7 September 2013

Table 2: BS 5837:2005 tree quality categories

Category A Trees of high value including those that are particularly good

examples of their species and/or those that are visually dominant

within the landscape

Category B Trees of moderate value including those that do not qualify as

Category A due to minor remedial defects and/or those that

collectively form distinct landscape features, thereby attracting a

higher rating than they might as individuals

Category C Trees of low value, the retention of which should not

unreasonably constrain development

Category R Trees unsuitable for long-term retention that should ideally be

removed prior to the commencement of construction unless

otherwise advised

Implications of the Proposed Development

4.12 Table 3 lists the BS 5837:2005 quality categories of trees that will require

removal in order to facilitate the development proposals and those that can be

retained. This is the result of an assessment based on the proposed site plan

supplied by the client.

Table 3: Arboricultural implications of the proposed development

Tree Quality Assessment Category/Retention Value

A B C R

Trees and groups that

can be retained

T4, T7, T10,

T11, T12,

T15

G2 (partial)

G6, G9

W1, W2, W3,

W4, W5, W6

T2, T3, T5, T6,

T8, T9, T13,

T14, T16, T18,

T19, T20, T21

G1 (partial),

G4, G5,

G10 (partial),

G11, G12

T1, T30, T33

G7, G8, -

Trees and groups that

require removal to

facilitate development

T28

G2 (partial)

T23, T24, T26,

T29, T31

G1 (partial),

G10 (partial)

G3

T17*, T22*,

T25, T27,

T32

See Appendix 1, Arboricultural Data Sheets for subcategories

*Trees recommended for Conservation Stump creation



Version 3.0

8 September 2013

4.13 11 trees will require removal and 4 groups will require partial or total removal to

facilitate the development proposals.

4.14 The total reduction in tree cover by canopy area that is required to facilitate the

development is approximately 0.3ha.

4.15 Trees T17, T22, T25, T27 and T32 are R Category under the British Standard

(unsuitable for long term retention). These trees are either recommended for

complete removal or for conversion to standing deadwood habitat because of

poor condition. However, they are all counted towards the total number of

removed trees because they could be retained as they are under the current

land usage.

4.16 Trees T17 and T22 are dead and should be reduced so that the stem or stem

and primary scaffold branches remain. The purpose of this is to leave dead

wood habitats and retain visually interesting features within the development.

4.17 The impact of the required tree removal will be mainly visual and in terms of

habitat and connectivity. The existing but broken belt of trees that bisects the

site and suggests a previous field boundary will be substantially removed. One

high-value tree (T26) will be removed), as will some trees from high-value group

G2.

4.18 The most significant tree loss will be associated with the access road and

required visibility splays. Construction in this area will result in the loss of a

large part of group G2 (high value), a significant part of groups G1 and G10

(moderate value) and all of G3 (low value). Together, these features provide an

effectively continuous green corridor along the southern side of the A610 to the

benefit of visual amenity, landscape character, screening for the houses to the

north and habitat infrastructure.

Mitigation Landscaping

4.19 Mitigation for the loss of trees and associated habitats will be provided in the

form of replacement tree planting. A planting masterplan has been produced

and is shown on Drawing 2. This plan forms the basis of the assessment of net

or residual arboricultural impacts.

4.20 The choice of replacement trees includes species of varied ultimate size and

height, incorporating larger tree species with the potential to provide benefit

beyond their immediate environment and to a more diverse range of ecology

(oak, small leaved lime, sweet chestnut, beech, and hornbeam). Small and

medium sized native trees are also specified (crab apple, field maple, rowan and

bird cherry).



Version 3.0

9 September 2013

4.21 The surrounding belts of woodland present a significant opportunity for

arboricultural improvement of the area, both through thinning and planting

within the woods and by augmentation through adjacent planting. To this end,

liaison with neighbouring landowners is recommended in order to negotiate

possible areas for the recommended woodland improvement works. Any such

works may require TPO permission or Felling Licences.

4.22 The loss of screening and wildlife corridor effects associated with the removal

of trees in groups G1, G2, G3 and G10 will be mitigated by the planting of new

pockets of woodland around the new entrance road. The planting of land

adjacent to the new entrance will have the effect of increasing the depth of

boundary vegetation. Views through the entrance gap will largely be obscured

by trees within the site but lining the mouth of the site entrance. Accordingly,

the visual impact of the gap in the otherwise unbroken buffer will be

diminished. Views into the site through the entrance will be possible along an

approximately 175m length of the road.

4.23 The loss of individual trees across the site can be mitigated by the planting of

new specimen trees within the site landscaping scheme. Trees T22 to T29 and

T31 include large Oaks that mark a boundary line within the site that is no

longer present. One new specimen tree is proposed on this original line in the

centre of a new roundabout.

4.24 Three specimen trees will be provided around the road infrastructure at the site

entrance. These will provide visual interest and an arboricultural focal point to

introduce the green character of the site. Tulip tree, redwood and sweet

chestnut have been specified.

4.25 150 individual trees will be planted in total (excluding woodland planting) as

part of the site’s landscaping scheme. This represents a significant increase in

arboricultural amenity and value. The increase in tree numbers and structural

diversity of the stock will improve the long term prospects for tree cover, health

and associated social, environmental and economic benefits.

4.26 The new area of woodland planting that is shown in the west of the site will

have a significantly beneficial effect on the arboricultural value of the site. The

benefits that are associated with new woodland planting will increase over time

and may not reach a final plateau for hundreds of years.

4.27 New woodland planting comprises individually small trees that contribute little

to visual amenity of habitat value in the short term. However, the total area

available for new planting is larger than the total area of removed trees. Over

time, there will therefore be potential for a significant net increase in the

arboricultural value of the site under the proposed scheme where a suitably

robust landscaping scheme can be agreed.



Version 3.0

10 September 2013

4.28 New woodland planting to extend Verge Wood and to strengthen the boundary

planting in the southern part of the site is proposed. In total, 5.88ha of new

woodland planting is proposed. This area will include a cycle/recreational

pathway for public use. This proposal represents a meaningful contribution to

local tree cover that will ensure that, with appropriate management, the

arboricultural legacy of the development is strongly positive.

4.29 In addition to tree planting, 13,865m2 of native shrub planting and 13,120m2 of

wildflower meadow is proposed. These will provide benefits beyond the scope

of this report but new native vegetation and associated increases in habitats

and fauna should be considered to be mutually beneficial for trees. Woodland

development and function in particular will be improved by the nearby presence

of other native flora.

5.0 TREE PROTECTION REQUIREMENTS

Root Protection Areas (RPAs) and Construction Exclusion Zones (CEZ)

5.1 As per BS 5837:2005, the RPA is calculated using the trees diameter at 1.5

metres (refer to Appendix 1) and represents the minimum area around each tree

that must be left undisturbed to ensure their survival.

5.2 Tree roots spread two to five times the width of the crown. The majority of tree

roots are found in the top 600 mm of soil and most of the fine roots that absorb

water and nutrients are found in the top 100 mm.

5.3 The morphology of roots is influenced by past and present site conditions (the

presence of roads, structures and underground services), soil type, topography

and drainage. This means that a tree’s roots may not be uniform in their extent

and the RPA may not be a circular area centred on the tree stem.

5.4 The RPAs shown on Drawing 1 are indicative only at this stage and has been

used to inform the placement of protective fencing (Drawing 2). This defines a

Construction Exclusion Zone (CEZ) which must be considered sacrosanct during

all development phases.

Protective Fencing

5.5 Protective barrier fencing will be required to demarcate a CEZ around retained

trees in close proximity to proposed construction. This must be done prior to the

commencement of any development works, including bringing machinery or

materials onto site and the erection of site huts. Protective fencing alignment is

shown on Drawing 2 and assumes that all trees identified for removal have been

felled prior to installation.



Version 3.0

11 September 2013

5.6 The fencing must be fixed into the ground to withstand accidental impact from

machinery and to ensure that a sufficient protective area is maintained. Details of

the recommended Heras protective fencing are shown in Drawing 3.

5.7 Any alteration to the fencing alignment to allow for approved activities will be

made in agreement with the Council’s Arboricultural Officer.

5.8 The protective fencing must not be removed until the physical construction phase

has been completed and all vehicles have been removed from site, to the

satisfaction of the appointed Arboricultural Consultant.

Ground Contamination

5.9 Storage areas for liquids such as fuels, oil or paint should not be located within

10m of any trees on or within proximity the site due to the risk of soil

contamination caused by accidental spillage.

5.10 If contamination does occur, then remediation advice should be sought from a

qualified arboriculturist.

Underground Utility Issues

5.11 Guidelines set out in the National Joint Utilities Group publication NJUG Volume

4, Guidelines for the Planning, Installation and Maintenance of Utility apparatus

in Proximity to Trees will be adhered to during excavation works close to or

partially within RPAs.

5.12 NJUG Volume 4 can be downloaded free of charge from –

http://www.njug.org.uk

Tree activity and high ropes play area

5.13 The proposed installation of a play area around trees T13 to T21 and groups

G11 and G12 will require special protection during construction and also during

final site usage. These measures should be outlined in an Arboricultural Method

Statement. The design of the facility must be informed by detailed

arboricultural recommendations covering form, installation and future

management.

6.0 ARBORICULTURAL RECOMMENDATIONS

Tree works

6.1 The following recommendations are made for the abatement of existing or

developing hazards and in the interests of good arboricultural management.

Some opportunities to improve the tree stock are also highlighted.

http://www.njug.org.uk/



Version 3.0

12 September 2013

Table 4: Tree works

Tree or Group Reference

Number Works Required

T1* Monitor condition biennially and pollard on 5-year cycle

T3, T9 Monitor annually

T11 Remove dead wood and clear out stem union for reinspection

T14 Remove dead branch and crown lift

T15 Remove dead branch

T16 Remove low branch

T17, T22 Reduce to a single stem ‘conservation stump’ and monitor

annually

T21 Deadwood

T25, T27, T32 Remove tree and replant

T30 Deadwood, mulch area and monitor recovery

T33 Monitor annually

G1 Remove part to facilitate construction. Interplant to reinforce

and restore feature and crown lift over green lane

G2 Remove part to facilitate construction. New planting to

improve species mix/age structure. 15% selective thin.

G3 Remove to facilitate construction

G4* Remove dead trees within falling distance of the site

G7 Infill and new planting to improve wildlife corridor connecting

new swale to existing woodland and improve screening

G9 Infill planting and new planting to extend group to the south

G10 Remove part to facilitate construction

W1*

Improve species and age mix by new planting as selective

thinning, inspect boundary trees biennially, install protective

fencing 7m from stems during construction

W2

Selective thinning around potential climax trees to facilitate

species transition, remove one hawthorn with union failure,

install protective fencing 4m from boundary

W4 Remove dead elms and hawthorn near to boundary



Version 3.0

13 September 2013

Tree or Group Reference

Number Works Required

W5 Clear up failed ash tree and fell supporting tree with rootplate

instability

W6 Remove dead and dying elms along boundary and extend

group by new planting along the boundary to the north

T13, T14, T15, T16, T18,

T19, T20, T21, G11, G12

Additional pruning and installation works may be required

during installation of play facility, particularly crown lifting

and mulching to alleviate cattle compaction. Works to be

detailed as part of an Arboricultural Method Statement

*Marked features are subject to Tree Preservation Order and recommended works will

require permission from the local authority.

6.2 The removal of dead wood and dead trees for risk management purposes

constitutes a loss of niche habitats across the site. To this end, the retention of

dead trees as ‘conservation stumps’ is recommended as well as the retention of

all dead trees within the peripheral woodland compartments that are beyond

falling distance of any target.

6.3 The installation of play logs may provide deadwood habitat as well as meeting

recreational objectives and recycling trees felled on the site.

Arboricultural Method Statements

6.4 The construction activities proposed within the CEZ identified on Drawing 2 will

require an Arboricultural Method Statement (AMS).

6.5 An AMS details special mitigation construction and procedures that will minimise

damage to tree roots and the surrounding soil. Special mitigation construction

works are likely to require more time and proprietary materials, thus early

consultation and discussion with an appropriately qualified arboriculturalist when

detailing plans will help with resource allocation.

6.6 The installation of a play area around trees T13 – T21 and groups G11 and G12

will require a method statement to detail tree protection methods during and

post-construction. It may be possible to use existing trees within the apparatus

design, for example to support platforms or framework. This must be informed

by an AMS and an appropriate system of tree risk management. Trees in this

area should be resurveyed individually following the construction phase to ensure

safe operation of the facility.

6.7 Trees T23 and T28 are retained within areas of hard landscaping in the scheme.

The successful retention of these trees will be technically possible using special

construction techniques that must be detailed in an AMS. Detailed

recommendations for the construction of six overflow parking spaces within the

rooting area of T28 should also be included.



Version 3.0

14 September 2013

6.8 Trees T24, T26 and T30 are retained within soft landscaping areas in the

scheme. Surface treatment, planting and other associated activities in these

areas should also be detailed within an AMS.

6.9 Some sections of footpath and cycle path pass close to trees. These should be

detailed in an AMS in order to avoid damage to tree roots and soils.

Post Development Management

6.10 Aftercare is vital to the survival of newly planted trees. Provision should be

made for the maintenance of newly planted trees and include watering,

formative pruning and the checking of tree ties and stakes.

6.11 Hazard recommendations are based on observations at the time of survey.

Trees are dynamic living organisms whose structure is constantly changing.

Even those in good condition can suffer from damage or stress. Following site

development, regular (annual or biennial) inspections of all retained trees should

be undertaken by a qualified arboriculturist.



Version 3.0

15 September 2013

7.0 SUMMARY

7.1 Based on an objective assessment made in accordance with BS 5837:2005

Trees in Relation to Construction – Recommendations, there are 16 Category A

features, 24 Category B features, 6 Category C features and 5 Category R

features within the survey area.

7.2 11 trees, 1 tree group and part of 3 tree groups will be removed.

7.3 The main area of impact in terms of tree loss will be around the entrance and

road infrastructure. The new access will cause a loss of screening and visual

amenity and a loss of habitat and green connectivity. A number of oak trees in

reasonable condition will also be removed across the centre of the site.

7.4 At the time of the survey some trees immediately adjacent to the site were

subject to Tree Preservation Orders. Further details can be found in Section 3.

7.5 Pruning works are recommended. These include the removal of dead wood or

trees for hazard abatement, and woodland thinning and improvement works. In

some areas, the retention of dead trees for conservation value is recommended.

7.6 Ten features were noted as having features of a size and condition desirable to

bats, including 5 woodland compartments. Any tree that has been identified as

having bat roost potential (Section 3.3) that will be affected by the

development proposal should be included in bat activity surveys.

7.7 Protective barrier fencing will be required to demarcate a Construction Exclusion

Zone (CEZ) around retained trees prior to the commencement of development.

Fencing alignment is shown on Drawing 2 and a specification on Drawing 3.

7.8 An Arboricultural Method Statement (AMS) will be required for works proposed

within the CEZ shown on Drawing 2. The AMS will detail special mitigation

construction and procedure that will minimise damage to tree roots and the

surrounding soil. The AMS should detail areas of hard and soft landscaping,

footpath and cycle track construction close to trees, and the design and

implementation of the ‘treetop play area’ in the south-west of the site.

7.9 It is the recommendation of this report that the loss of trees associated with the

development proposals will be adequately mitigated by the planting of 150 new

individual trees and 5.88ha of new woodland planting. New planting will result

in a substantial net increase in tree cover and associated positive effects.

Impacts to screening will be minimised by new woodland planting around the

site entrance. Particular benefits will be associated with the extension of an

existing wood, strengthening of boundary planting and increases in species and

age variation. An increase in arboreal habitats and environmental functions is

anticipated in the longer terms and an increase in public access to wooded

areas may have associated health and social benefits.

APPENDIX 1

ARBORICULTURAL DATA SHEETS

APPENDIX 1: Arboricultural Survey Data Sheets

Surveyor TP

Date 15th June 2011

Town Nottingham

Site M1 J26 Oxylane Village

Dwg Ref D2953.001

Ref Species Height Stem Dia.

No. of

stems/indiv

iduals

Crown

Spread

North

Crown

Spread

South

Crown

Spread

East

Crown

Spread

West

Height of

Lowest

Branch

Maturity ConditionComments on form, condition,

health and significant defects

BS5837

Tree

Quality

Assess.

Radius of

RPA guide

circle

BS5837

RPAManagement Recommendations

Estimated

Remaining

Contribution

(m) (mm)arising

below 1.5m(m) (m) (m) (m) (m)

Young,

Middle Age,

Mature,

Veteran

Good, Fair,

Poor

A,B,C,R

(1,2,3)(m) (m2)

Long, Medium,

Short

Trees

T1 Sycamore 9.0 850.0 2.0 3.0 2.0 3.0 2.0 2.0 Middle Age Poor Bifurcate tree; natural pollard; both

stems failed at 3m with regrowth

forming a canopy with lumpy form;

cracks and splits in stem but no

imminent hazard

C,1,3 8.5 227.0 Monitor biennially and repollard on

a 5-year cycle

Short

T2 Sycamore 16.0 800.0 2.0 5.0 7.0 6.0 6.0 3.0 Middle Age Fair Basally bifurcate tree with included

union but separate rooting; some

buttress and root damage from

grazing; prominent boundary tree

B,1 8.0 201.1 Medium

T3 Sycamore 17.0 2000.0 3.0 5.0 10.0 9.0 7.0 3.0 Mature Fair Large boundary tree; basally

trifurcate but with probable

separate rooting; fire damage

within rooting area; moderate stem

cavity and root severance; largest

tree in area

B,2 20.0 1256.6 Monitor annually Medium

T4 Ash 17.0 650.0 1.0 6.0 7.0 7.0 6.0 6.0 Middle Age Good Slightly twiggy crown; bifurcate at

5m; boundary tree

A,1,2 7.8 191.1 Long

T5 Sycamore 16.0 690.0 1.0 6.0 6.0 7.0 7.0 4.0 Middle Age Good Boundary tree; ivy-clad; fence

occlusions; no significant defects

B,1,2 8.3 215.4 Long

T6 Sycamore 16.0 540.0 1.0 2.0 5.0 5.0 7.0 4.0 Middle Age Good Boundary tree; fence occlusions;

no significant defects

B,1,2 6.5 131.9 Long

T7 Ash 18.0 530.0 1.0 6.0 4.0 8.0 6.0 3.0 Middle Age Good Adjacent to clearing; internal stem

crack; good form; minor

asymmetry

A,1,2 6.4 127.1 Long

T8 Sycamore 17.0 700.0 2.0 7.0 7.0 12.0 7.0 2.0 Middle Age Fair Major bifurcation failure at 1m;

meaning asymmetrical tree with

broken stem still growing on the

ground; good habitat

B,3 7.0 153.9 Medium

T9 Ash 16.0 560.0 1.0 6.0 6.0 6.0 6.0 5.0 Middle Age Fair Minor stem cracking and bacterial

ooze; reduced crown density

B,1,2 6.7 141.9 Monitor annually Long

T10 Beech 16.0 650.0 1.0 6.0 6.0 7.0 6.0 3.0 Middle Age Good Good form and balanced crown;

2.5m from fence

A,1,2 7.8 191.1 Long

T11 Beech 17.0 1010.0 1.0 8.0 8.0 8.0 8.0 2.0 Middle Age Fair Major cavity with animal holes in

dead wood; bat potential; internal

adventitious roots; some foliage

browning possibly due to recent

dry weather

A,1,2,3 12.1 461.5 Long

T11 Sycamore 16.0 2000.0 6.0 9.0 6.0 9.0 9.0 3.0 Mature Good Large tree, multistemmed from

base; possibly an old lapsed

coppice stool; unusual form with

high interest value; balanced

crown; no obvious major cavities

and some dead wood

A,1 20.0 1256.6 Remove dead wood and detritus

from within stem union to allow for

better inspection of condition

Long

TEP Ref: X2953.001 1 of 4 June 2011



No. of

stems/indiv

iduals

Crown

Spread

North

Crown

Spread

South

Crown

Spread

East

Crown

Spread

West

Height of

Lowest

Branch



BS5837

Tree

Quality

Assess.

Radius of

RPA guide

circle

BS5837


Estimated

Remaining

Contribution

(m) (mm)arising

below 1.5m(m) (m) (m) (m) (m)

Young,

Middle Age,

Mature,

Veteran

Good, Fair,

Poor

A,B,C,R

(1,2,3)(m) (m2)

Long, Medium,

Short

T12 Ash 17.0 560.0 1.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 4.0 Middle Age Good Boundary tree with fence

occlusions; breaks the

surrounding canopy

A,1,2 6.7 141.9 Long

T13 Ash 17.0 900.0 3.0 3.0 7.0 5.0 7.0 4.0 Middle Age Good Basally bifurcate; minor cavities;

fence occlusion; good union;

boundary tree

B,1,2 9.0 254.5 Long

T14 Ash 16.0 520.0 1.0 3.0 6.0 7.0 5.0 3.0 Middle Age Good Boundary tree; fence occlusions;

some exposed buttresses and

compaction

B,1,2 6.2 122.3 Remove dead branch; crown raise Long

T15 Ash 18.0 780.0 1.0 10.0 8.0 11.0 8.0 3.0 Middle Age Good First tree in group/line; some

dieback of tips; typical form and

condition for species

A,1,2 9.4 275.2 Remove dead branch and tips if

close to proposed rope course

Long

T16 Oak 17.0 840.0 1.0 4.0 5.0 10.0 7.0 4.0 Middle Age Fair Stem wounds and browsing by

cattle and associated compaction;

dense; asymmetrical crown with

some dead wood; old failures;

large wounds on low branches

B,2 10.1 319.2 Reduce low branch; mulch area

and alleviate compaction

Long

T17 Oak 12.0 450.0 1.0 5.0 4.0 5.0 5.0 2.0 Middle Age Poor Dead tree R n/a n/a Reduce to habitat pole and

monitor annually within play area

Short

T18 Ash 16.0 630.0 1.0 6.0 6.0 7.0 6.0 3.0 Middle Age Fair Root damage and compaction;

bifurcate at 1m; prominent tree in

better condition than many

adjacent trees; minor dead wood;

no significant defects

B,1,2 7.6 179.6 Mulch area to alleviate compaction Long

T19 Sycamore 9.0 350.0 1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 3.0 2.0 Middle Age Fair Cattle damage and browsed

epicormic growth; small dense

crown; some scale insect and

pruning wounds

B,2 4.2 55.4 Mulch area to alleviate compaction Medium

T20 Sycamore 10.0 570.0 1.0 5.0 5.0 6.0 5.0 3.0 Middle Age Fair Tight bifurcation at 2m; lean to

east (20 degrees approx.); cattle

damage


T21 Oak 9.0 570.0 1.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 6.0 2.0 Middle Age Fair Minor dead wood; cattle damage

and compaction

B,2 6.8 147.0 Mulch area to alleviate

compaction; deadwood

Long

T22 Sycamore 10.0 2000.0 7.0 6.0 6.0 6.0 6.0 2.0 Middle Age Poor Dead multistemmed tree R n/a n/a Reduce to a single stem for habitat

and monitor annually

Short

T23 Ash 14.0 690.0 1.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 3.0 Middle Age Fair Bifurcate at 1.5m; buttress

damage; reduced crown density;

compaction within root area; some

wounds and dead wood


T24 Sycamore 11.0 660.0 2.0 5.0 7.0 5.0 5.0 4.0 Middle Age Fair Bifurcate healthy crown; cattle

damage to roots and soil


T25 Sycamore 12.0 720.0 1.0 7.0 8.0 7.0 7.0 4.0 Middle Age Poor Ring-barked and decaying at

base; dieback; shotgun wounds

R n/a n/a Remove tree and replant Short

T26 Sycamore 12.0 680.0 1.0 8.0 3.0 9.0 7.0 4.0 Middle Age Good Leaning tree with basal cavity;

asymmetric crown form

B,1,2 8.2 209.2 Mulch area to alleviate compaction Medium

T27 Sycamore 11.0 570.0 1.0 5.0 5.0 7.0 4.0 2.0 Middle Age Poor Advanced decline; poor leaf flush;

cattle damage

R n/a n/a Remove tree and replant Short

T28 Oak 10.0 650.0 1.0 9.0 7.0 7.0 7.0 3.0 Middle Age Good Cattle damage; minor dead wood;

broad form; better condition than

surrounding trees

A,1,2 7.8 191.1 Long

T29 Oak 13.0 840.0 1.0 10.0 8.0 7.0 8.0 2.0 Middle Age Fair Minor cavities at 2m; basal failure;

moderate dead wood; leaf

yellowing; compaction associated

with track

B,1,2 10.1 319.2 Deadwood Long

TEP Ref: X2953.001 2 of 4 June 2011



No. of

stems/indiv

iduals

Crown

Spread

North

Crown

Spread

South

Crown

Spread

East

Crown

Spread

West

Height of

Lowest

Branch



BS5837

Tree

Quality

Assess.

Radius of

RPA guide

circle

BS5837


Estimated

Remaining

Contribution

(m) (mm)arising

below 1.5m(m) (m) (m) (m) (m)

Young,

Middle Age,

Mature,

Veteran

Good, Fair,

Poor

A,B,C,R

(1,2,3)(m) (m2)

Long, Medium,

Short

T30 Oak 12.0 720.0 1.0 7.0 7.0 7.0 7.0 5.0 Middle Age Poor Major dead wood; chorosis; low

vigour; basal cavity; cattle damage

C,2 8.6 234.5 Deadwood tree, protect roots

during development and monitor

recovery, mulch area

Medium

T31 Oak 12.0 720.0 1.0 7.0 7.0 7.0 7.0 4.0 Middle Age Fair Moderate dead wood; cattle

compaction; end tree of linear

group

B,1,2 8.6 234.5 Deadwood Long

T32 Sycamore 11.0 500.0 2.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 2.0 Middle Age Poor Dead birfurcate tree R n/a n/a Remove tree and replant Short

T33 Ash 14.0 620.0 2.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 4.0 2.0 Middle Age Poor Canker and bacterial ooze;

bifurcate at 0.5m with poor union

form; reasonable crown condition

C,1,2 6.2 120.8 Monitor annually Medium

Groups

G1 Hawthorn; elder;

holly

6.0 250.0 10+ 1.0 Middle Age Good Hedge by track along boundary;

good feature for potential 'green

lane' within development; old

boundary feature with sunken

adjacent lane leading down to

underpass

B,2,3 See

Drawing

D2953.00

1

Interplant to reinforce and restore

feature and protect to 4m from

stems; crown lift over green lane

Long

G2 Beech; hawthorn;

birch; ash

16.0 450.0 10+ 1.0 Middle Age Good Bank planting with old hedgerow

boundary trees; slender woodland

form; some detritus around layby;

mainly beech monoculture with

some variety in localised areas

A,2 See

Drawing

D2953.00

1

Planting to increase species

diversity; 15% selective thinning;

crown lift over green lane

Long

G3 Hawthorn 5.0 250.0 10+ 1.0 Middle Age Good Small bank trees by underpass C,1,3 See

Drawing

D2953.00

1

Additional planting in surrounding

area to stabilise bank

Long

G4 Elm; elder; ash;

sycamore

17.0 700.0 10+ 1.0 Young to

Middle Age

Fair Dense natural area with many

small dead elms and dense

brambles/nettles; some larger

sycamore to interior; larger

clearing to west of group; high

wildlife value

B,1,2,3 See

Drawing

D2953.00

1

Remove dead trees within falling

distance of the boundary

Long

G5 Common lime 16.0 500.0 10+ 1.0 Middle Age Good Cluster of stems in woodland W1;

epicormic growth; two of three

trees; adjacent to clearing with

dense ferns

B,1,2,3 See

Drawing

D2953.00

1

Long

G6 Ash 18.0 520.0 10+ 3.0 Middle Age Good Stand within boundary woods;

close spacing; ivy; some slender

and asymmetrical form towards

the site interior

A,1,2 See

Drawing

D2953.00

1

Long

G7 Hawthorn 5.0 200.0 10+ 1.0 Middle Age Fair Odd small boundary trees; some

grazing damage

C,1 See

Drawing

D2953.00

1

Infill planting and planting to

extend group for improved

screening and to connect new

swale to woodland compartments

Long

G8 Hawthorn; wych

elm; oak

6.0 200.0 10+ 1.0 Mature Fair Boundary planting belt and scrub;

good screening

C,1 See

Drawing

D2953.00

1

Long

G9 Beech; elm;

sycmore;

hawthorn; ash

15.0 600.0 10+ 1.0 Young to

Middle Age

Fair Planting by motorway; some

drought stress; larger sycamore to

northern end, 1m from boundary;

dense

A,2 See

Drawing

D2953.00

1

Infill planting and planting to

extend group

Long

TEP Ref: X2953.001 3 of 4 June 2011



No. of

stems/indiv

iduals

Crown

Spread

North

Crown

Spread

South

Crown

Spread

East

Crown

Spread

West

Height of

Lowest

Branch



BS5837

Tree

Quality

Assess.

Radius of

RPA guide

circle

BS5837


Estimated

Remaining

Contribution

(m) (mm)arising

below 1.5m(m) (m) (m) (m) (m)

Young,

Middle Age,

Mature,

Veteran

Good, Fair,

Poor

A,B,C,R

(1,2,3)(m) (m2)

Long, Medium,

Short

G10 Hawthorn; elder;

ash; wych elm

7.0 250.0 10+ 1.0 Middle Age Good Boundary hedge/belt of trees;

dense, valuable screening and

wildlife corridor

B,2,3 See

Drawing

D2953.00

1

Widen by 2m and remove dead

trees

Long

G11 Ash; oak 16.0 540.0 27.0 2.0 Middle Age Fair Broadly linear group of similarly

aged and sized trees with one oak;

some stem leaning and

asymmetrical form; many stem

wounds and browsing damage

from cattle with associated

cavities; cattle compaction; some

multistemmed form; rubble in area

B,2 See

Drawing

D2953.00

1

Mulch area to alleviate

compaction; remove damaged

stems where they are close to

targets within the development

Long

G12 Ash; sycmore 15.0 1000.0 12.0 2.0 Middle Age Fair One sycamore; many wounds and

cavities; some lost or removed

stems; cattle dcamage; landscape

value; old boundary feature

B,2 See

Drawing

D2953.00

1

Mulch area to alleviate compaction Long

Woods

W1 Sycamore;

hawthorn; elm;

elder; ash

17.0 750.0 10+ 1.0 Middle Age to

Mature

Good Woodland area; almost entirely

sycamore; wild garlic abundant;

nests; attractive backdrop to site

and buffer planting; some old

hawthorn on edge of group with

interesting mature form; very

prominent feature

A,2 See

Drawing

D2953.00

1

Improve species mix by a

combination of thinning and

replanting; cyclical biennial

inspection of boundary trees;

protect at 7m from stems

Long

W2 Hawthorn; elder;

sycamore; ash;

sych elm; oak

12.0 400.0 10+ 1.0 Middle Age to

Mature

Good Strong boundary line of hawthorn

adjacent to woodland area;

developing woodland with good

subcanopy species mix but fewer

large trees than surrounding

woodland areas

A,2,3 See

Drawing

D2953.00

1

Selective thinning to create space

around potential climax trees;

removal of one hawthorn witth

union failure; protect to 4m from

boundary

Long

W3 Oak; hawthorn;

sycamore; elder;

beech; ash; wych

elm; larch

17.0 880.0 10+ 1.0 Middle Age to

Mature

Good Continuation of W2 but with an

increased number of larger

standard trees and therefore more

open at ground level; very high

value feature; mature hawthorn

along boundary

A,1,2,3 See

Drawing

D2953.00

1

Long

W4 Hawthorn; elder;

wych elm; cherry;

hazel; oak;

sycamore; rose;

holly

12.0 350.0 10+ 1.0 Middle Age Good Dense scrubby woodland with

boundary line of hawthorn trees;

good species mix; some dead

elms; good bird nesting potential

A,1,2,3 See

Drawing

D2953.00

1

Remove dead elms and hawthorn

near to boundary

Long

W5 Ash; sycamore;

hawthorn; elder

18.0 800.0 10+ 1.0 Young to

Middle Age

Good Woodland belt with good age

structure; minor browsing damage;

most trees around 450mm stem

diameter along boundary edge

A,1,2,3 See

Drawing

D2953.00

1

Tidy up failed ash tree and fell

supporting tree with partial

rootplate failure

Long

W6 Ash; wych elm;

hawthorn; oak;

sycamore; yew;

elder; hazel; elm;

field maple

17.0 600.0 10+ 1.0 Middle Age Good Good species mix with some elm

regen from old stumps; valuable

screening from motorway; good

structure; ash is the main canopy

species

A,1,2,3 See

Drawing

D2953.00

1

Remove dead and dying elms by

boundary; extend group along the

eastern boundary

Long

TEP Ref: X2953.001 4 of 4 June 2011

APPENDIX 2

SURVEY METHODOLOGY

APPENDIX 2: ARBORICULTURE SURVEY METHOD

Revision D TEP, Genesis Centre, Birchwood Science Park, Warrington, WA3 7BH

Arboricultural surveys are conducted from ground level only. The nature of the soils on site is not assessed during the survey. The possibility of minor soil movement due to the root activity of the trees cannot be discounted; therefore, the advice of a structural engineer should be sought with regard to appropriate foundation depths. Trees are dynamic living organisms with a constantly changing structure; even trees in good condition can suffer from damage or stress. Regular annual or bi-annual inspections by a qualified arboriculturalist can help to identify potential problems before they become acute. The following features of each tree, group of trees or wood may have been recorded in the Arboricultural Data Sheets (Appendix One). Species The common name is given. The Latin name may also be given if further clarification is required. Height Top height of tree recorded in metres. Stem Diameter For single-stemmed trees the measurement is taken at 1.5 metres above ground level and recorded in

millimetres. For multi-stemmed trees the measurement is taken directly above the root flare in millimetres. For tree groups the measurement is taken in the same way as with single-stemmed trees and is recorded in millimetres as a range from minimum to maximum diameters.

No. of Stems A count of stems arising below a height of 1.5m. Crown Spread The N, S, E and W branch spreads are recorded in metres to provide a representative crown shape. Height of Lowest Branch Crown clearance above ground level recorded in metres. Tree Age Young Trees than can reasonably be relocated or replaced like for like, without undue cost; Middle Age Trees in the established growth stage of their life with the potential to continue increasing in size; Mature Trees that have reached their ultimate size, given their location and surroundings; Veteran A tree recognised by features of a biological, cultural or aesthetic value that are

characteristic of, but not exclusive to, individuals surviving beyond the typical age range for the species concerned.

Condition An overall assessment of a tree’s physiological and structural state in which factors that may increase its susceptibility to the effects of development are taken into account. Comments A brief evaluation and description of the tree with comments on the form, vitality, health and any significant defects that may be present. Trees are surveyed without reference to any proposed development. The implications of any development are discussed in the Arboricultural Implication Assessment. Tree Quality Assessment The tree quality assessment is based on Table 1 of BS 5837:2005 (See below). Four categories (A, B, C and R) are used to denote tree quality (A= High, B = Moderate, C = Low, R= Unsuitable for retention). Subcategories (1-3) denote the specific function value of the trees and the reasoning behind the assessment (the subcategories may be used in combination but do not accumulate collective weight). BS 5837 Root Protection Area (RPA) The Root Protection Area (RPA) is allocated to ensure that a sufficient area is left undisturbed during development to prevent direct and indirect damage to tree roots and the soil structure. The RPA is calculated using a mathematical equation included in BS 5837:2005 (Table 2) and is based on a trees stem diameter. In some cases the RPA may need to be adapted to ensure survival based on criteria such as the tree’s condition, species and crown spread. Any alteration should be justifiable but is made at the arboriculturists discretion. The surrounding RPA should remain undisturbed and be treated as a sacrosanct Construction Exclusion Zone (CEZ) until development completion and removal is approved by an arboriculturist.

APPENDIX 2: ARBORICULTURE SURVEY METHOD

Revision D TEP, Genesis Centre, Birchwood Science Park, Warrington, WA3 7BH

Recommendations Recommendations for arboricultural works, etc. are based on the current land use, and take into account the tree or group attributes without bias to the proposed development. Estimated Remaining Contribution An estimation of the trees useful life expectancy. Long > 40 years Medium 20 – 40 years Short 10 – 20 years Very Short < 10 years

British Standards Institute 2005, p.6 NOTE: All young trees are assessed as category ‘C’ quality but this does not preclude their retention within a development; all retention and removal recommendations will be detailed within the Arboricultural Implications Assessment report.

DRAWING 1

TREE CONSTRAINTS PLAN

S

P

O

I

L

S

O

F

E

A

R

T

H

T3

T4

T5

T6

T7

T8

T33

T9

T10

T11

T12

T13

T14

T15

T16

T32

T28

T29

T30

T31

T24

T25

T26

T27

T23

T18

T19

T20

T21

T22

T17

G1

G3

G10

G2

G4

W1

W1

W2

W3

G11

G12

W4

G6

W5

W6

W6

G8

G9

G7 (occasional individuals along boundary)

G5

T1

T2

Trees subject to Tree Preservation Order protection

NOTE:

Some individual tree stems were not shown on the

provided topographical survey drawing. Tree locations

should therefore be considered to be approximate.

All groups and woodlands that are adjacent to the site

are owned by third parties and must be retained unless

otherwise specified.

Trees on boundaries are jointly owned by both

landowners and must not be removed without mutual

consent.

Categories based on BS 5837: 2005

A Category Trees/Groups

High value features

B Category Trees/Groups

Moderate value features

C Category Trees/Groups

Low value features

R Category Trees/Groups

Features unsuitable for retention

Root Protection Area

To inform masterplanning

Drawing Key

Approximate Survey Boundary

Drwg No

Drawn

Scale

TP RO

1:1500 @ A1

D2953.001

Checked

Title

Tree Constraints Plan

Oxylane Village, Decathlon

M1 J26

JS

16/06/11

Approved

Date

Genesis Centre

Birchwood Science Park Warrington

WA3 7BH

Tel 01925 844004

Fax 01925 844002

e-mail [email protected]

Project

Description

Reproduced by permission of Ordnance Survey on behalf of Her Majesty's

Stationery Office.

© Crown Copyright and database right 2010. All rights reserved.

Rev Drawn Approved Date

DRAWING 2

ARBORICULTURAL IMPLICATIONS AND TREE PROTECTION PLAN

M

1

Tra

ck


High value features


Moderate value features


Low value features


For retention as 'conservation stumps'

Drawing Key

NOTE:

Some individual tree stems were not shown on the provided

topographical survey drawing. Tree locations should therefore

be considered to be approximate.

All groups and woodlands that are adjacent to the site are

owned by third parties and must be retained unless otherwise

specified.

Trees on boundaries are jointly owned by both landowners and

must not be removed without mutual consent.

Categories based on BS 5837: 2005


High value features for removal


Moderate value features for removal


Low value features for removal


Features unsuitable for retention

Special Construction Required

Detailed in Arboricultural Method Statement

Tree Protection Fencing

Drwg No

Drawn

Scale

TP RO

1:1500 @ A1

D2953.003

Checked

Title

Arboricultural Implications and Tree

Protection Plan

Oxylane Village, Decathlon

M1 J26

JS

11/07/11

Approved

Date

Genesis Centre

Birchwood Science Park Warrington

WA3 7BH

Tel 01925 844004

Fax 01925 844002

e-mail [email protected]

Project

Description

Reproduced by permission of Ordnance Survey on behalf of Her Majesty's

Stationery Office.

© Crown Copyright and database right 2010. All rights reserved.

Rev Drawn Approved Date

A Updated layout TP RR 20/08/12

B Updated layout TP JG 12/09/13

DRAWING 3

RECOMMENDED PROTECTIVE FENCING

Documents

OXYLANE VILLAGE, DECATHLON UK NOTTINGHAM …planning.broxtowe.gov.uk/(S(ei2fb23p0p34hb2yikr5dmel))/Published/... · OXYLANE VILLAGE, DECATHLON UK NOTTINGHAM ARBORICULTURAL IMPLICATIONS